How Shariah, an Intended Compass for Peace, Became a Tool of Oppression

reply to post by wildtimes

Alright, then. What do you suggest? What is your "practical implementation" of "cleansing" these "tumours", and getting rid of them ALL? If you do not feel you have the cultural context to apply your statement to other countries, then what about your own?

EDIT: I posted before seeing your response on the previous page, but I've got to say, I'm not a fan of your solution, as it completely bars discussion and dissent and debate on these topics, and attempts to formalise and solidify understandings and interpretations as fixed and set in stone- and puts the power in the hands of a select few.

wildtimes
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

As I post the Hadiths about Aisha, can you give a psychological profile for those people who might not understand her actions?

Well, I can attempt it, but honestly, I am NOT 'culturally competent' to explain the thought process of a child-bride (rape victim) nomad attached to a wandering tribe of warriors in the 7th century Middle Eastern desert. Not really.

But, as far as having to lie like a dead person, yes that definitely indicates fear/submission/oppression.

As for what she was thinking? Yes, she was aware of the rules and customs, but I'm not getting what you're driving at as far as her knowing that....while she was lying there. That he would kill her if she was animated while he was praying?

That is a horrible way to have to live. I don't know ANYTHING about Aisha except what I've heard here on ATS; she was a child....that much I know.

Everything we know about Aisha comes from the Hadiths. She was a child, forced to marry Mohammed who was 54 at the time.

Sahih Muslim,

He said: Tell me or the Subtle and the Aware would inform me. I said: Messenger of Allah, may my father and mother be ransom for you, and then I told him (the whole story). He said: Was it the darkness (of your shadow) that I saw in front of me? I said: Yes. He struck me on the chest which caused me pain, and then said: Did you think that Allah and His Apostle would deal unjustly with you? She said: Whatsoever the people conceal, Allah will know it. He said: Gabriel came to me when you saw me. He called me and he concealed it from you. I responded to his call, but I too concealed it from you (for he did not come to you), as you were not fully dressed. I thought that you had gone to sleep, and I did not like to awaken you, fearing that you may be frightened.

Gently pushing someone does not cause pain, but to "push" someone so hard in the chest that it hurts, is domestic abuse. Did he apologize? No, he did not.

So you see, as this girl who does not say every time she is beaten, still has been physically hurt and the situation she is in, she would live in fear, because there was no escape for her.

wildtimes
reply to post by babloyi

 

Can we get back to the topic - how to 'cleanse' Islam of its rabid clergy who encourage violence?

I want just as much to 'cleanse' Christianity of 'Westboro', and people who walk into churches to murder physicians, and who call for bombing Iran.

I want to get rid of ALL OF THEM. They are tumors on civilization, and must be routed out.

The contrived animosity that is going on now is astounding.

You forget your own words

We are on topic - and this is the thread you started. It's found the only path it could based on your title

The Christians give as good as they get - but you seem to want to cherry pick in your attempt to seem more evenhanded. We are a Christian nation Wildtimes - I'm reminded of this quite often - and we have bombed the living daylights out of many, many people. So, let's all please be honest about this. It's no less true or vile because it wasn't accomplished by suicide bombers

Westboro is the least of it

Your Thread title maybe should have read: How Religion, an Intended Compass for Peace, Became a Tool of Oppression

But, only if you intended this to go another way. I sense a recurring theme

Is Islam the enemy?

Eye on the ball

reply to post by wildtimes


The difference in Christians and Muslims are that Christians are allowed to question things about Christianity. And Christians do challenge other Christians on what is right or wrong.

But within Islam, they are not permitted to challenge the ruling Islamic sholarship, imams or judges and they cover each other to prevent them from straying.

They know this very well. When a Christian challenges them, they need others to watch them to make sure they don't stray. And I have noticed, that when a Muslim seems to start questioning, other Muslims jump in to remind them that they are being watched.

They do live in a culture where everybody has to watch each other, and they do live in fear that if they concede on one point, they have committed shirk.

They know what shirk is, so you can't do much effect when multiple Muslims make their presence aware to each other on these threads. They have to go back to denying the points they just conceded to. That's the world they live in, one of abject fear of each other, to the point they say the Shahada just to save their lives. How can you combat that?

They know they are doing it. And it's worse for Muslimahs.

reply to post by WarminIndy

What imagined world do you live in? None of what you are saying is true. Someone is watching me and will step in if I say something wrong?

Oh no!
People question all the time. The entire population of world muslims don't live in Saudi Arabia or something.

reply to post by Spiramirabilis


Spira,

They see it as a war. They told us it is a war. They justify their war through the Qu'ran and Shariah. So how can this not be a war, they have dictated this war against the entire planet, against the entirety of humanity.

Either we all become Muslim or we become dhimmis. That's the war, and should be insulating ourselves by not recognizing this?

13-8.17 Those fighting for Allah: The seventh category is “those fighting for Allah”, meaning, people engaged in Islamic military operations for whom no salary has been allotted in the army roster, such people being volunteers for jihad without remuneration. Such volunteers are given enough to suffice them for the operation, even if they are affluent having weapons, mounts, clothing, and expenses for the duration of the journey, round trip, and the time they spend there, even if prolonged. Although nothing has been mentioned here of the expense involved in supporting such people's families during this period, it seems clear that they should also be given the obligatory charity

What do you suppose Islamic military operations mean? Those fighting for Allah? Not those who are fighting for countries or nations, as you previously thought war was about. They provide in their current law, zakat for those fighting for Allah.

If there is no war, then no one is fighting. But if there is someone fighting in the name of Allah, then it is a war.

reply to post by FlyersFan

It would take a change coming from the inside. A change of the laws. A change of attitude. All from the INSIDE. Their own have to wake up and push their own rabid clergy to the trash can.

Bingo. So, why don't you leave them to it?

We're not even done changing our own backassward ways over here - or reigning in our rabid clergy either for that matter

Everything is just a matter of degree - and time - and perspective

And contrivance

Sorry. Not what you want to hear. But you asked ... and that's my opinion.

:-)

reply to post by babloyi


OK Babloyi, tell that to the apostates.

You know what ones I am talking about. Oh but wait, apostates are allowed to walk free, aren't they? Nothing ever happens to apostates, does it?

What really happens to them? And then can you tell my Salman Rushdie had to flee and why he had to hide out? Wait, that was a Fatwa, wasn't it?

Why does Nonie Darwish have a fatwa issued against her? Was it because she drove too fast through Egypt, or could it be that she spoke out against Islam?

Yes, there are those speaking out, and yes they live in fear. And yes, many take the Shahada just to save their lives. BTW, I would have to defend an apostate's human right to live, even if that apostate became atheist. Can I hear the same thing from your side? Do you defend the apostate's right to life?

reply to post by WarminIndy


Was the Vietnam war a political war, an ideological war - or a religious war?

How about Afghanistan? How about Iraq?

It's funny. Those people (yourself included) who constantly remind us that Islam has declared war on the West can only see the world from this one perspective. They think it honorable and useful to quarrel or bully people in the name of - of what? Justice? To protect our freedom?

To save the world?

Somehow, you (rather arrogantly) assume that others (myself included) somehow just don't see or fully appreciate the threat

Ignorance - it cut's both ways - doesn't it?

You're polite enough Ms. Indy - I'll give you that. But, you should realize a lost cause when you're looking at it - we see the world very differently you and I

Spiramirabilis
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

Was the Vietnam war a political war, an ideological war - or a religious war?

How about Afghanistan? How about Iraq?

It's funny. Those people (yourself included) who constantly remind us that Islam has declared war on the West can only see the world from this one perspective. They think it honorable and useful to quarrel or bully people in the name of - of what? Justice? To protect our freedom?

To save the world?

Somehow, you (rather arrogantly) assume that others (myself included) somehow just don't see or fully appreciate the threat

Ignorance - it cut's both ways - doesn't it?

You're polite enough Ms. Indy - I'll give you that. But, you should realize a lost cause when you're looking at it - we see the world very differently you and I

I believe I did answer your question to that previously.

We might see the world differently, but unless we show them that we are aware, and we have to show them, because so many of them do live in a world of fear. But at what point does it go from rhetoric to physical violence, even on American soil?

I believe people have the right to worship as they want, but I can't sit back and not recognize Shariah law as being dangerous. They haven't just declared war on the west, they have declared it against the entire planet and against all of humanity.

Did you know the struggles of those Buddhists in Indonesia? What about Bangladesh? What about India? Those are Eastern countries, and yet they live with it daily. I never said it was a war against the West.

If they didn't try to uphold Shariah law wherever they were, then we wouldn't have to worry about Islam. That includes those Eastern countries as well.

They are in a war with all of humanity and are killing each other because of Shariah. At what point do we just sit back and let them finish each other off? How many children are being orphaned right now in Islamic countries? And didn't that little girl Malila, wasn't she shot by Islamic fundamentals following Shariah law?

Do you remember the little girls killed by a fire in the school, simply because they were not wearing burquas? At what point can we turn away? If they allow their little girls to be killed for not wearing burquas, then why are we wrong for protesting it. Compassion begins at home. Let's not allow Shariah to come home to us.

Stop the madness, I agree. But how? At what point do we turn away?

reply to post by WarminIndy

WarminIndy
BTW, I would have to defend an apostate's human right to live, even if that apostate became atheist. Can I hear the same thing from your side? Do you defend the apostate's right to life?

See, this is what I keep talking about "Shariah" isn't some monolithic set-in-stone collection of rules. I keep repeating that. Do you understand what I mean by it?
Even from the very beginning of Islam in arabia, there were schools of thought that contended that simply abandoning Islam (and nothing else) was not grounds for death- and they supported their position from the scripture.

But of course, you'll attempt again to tell me of some passage from a 14th century manual of jurisprudence that suggests otherwise. Why should I care what it says? How is it relevant to the religion, or how is it relevant to today?

reply to post by babloyi


Excuse me, I am sorry to question why you keep saying it only applies to the 14th century, when they themselves cite Sharia law?

Are you telling me they don't pray the way Sharia tells them to? There are several, several pages on the proper way to pray, today. They follow it today.

I think you would serve a better argument toward those who believe in Sharia? I didn't write it, I didn't publish it, but someone did...and someone reads from it in a mosque somewhere on this planet, today. Well, maybe not today, but last night.

As much as you would like to say it is a 14th century document, the one I am reading from, was published in Cairo, Egypt in 1939.

And it is directed to these people

Shihabudeen Abi Al Abbas Ahmad ibn Lu'lu' Ibn Naqib Al-Misri (Famous name) Islamic Supreme Judge Died 769h-1368 A Classical Handbook of Islamic Daily Jurisprudence Practices According to Imam Shafi (204h) To Students, Teachers, Imams, Habeebs and Judges Translated with annotations by Syekh Noah Ha Mim Keller (1991) English Simplified and reorganized by Syekh Ahmad Darwish Arabic name: The Reliance of the Traveler and Preparation of the Worshipper (Ibn an-Naqib al Misri ) Printed by Mustafa babi halabi of Azhar, Cairo in 1357h-1939

To WHOM is this directed? Would you care to point out to me, from the introduction of this book, just who is this for?

Students..ok we could say students who are learning history.
Teachers...ok we could say teachers who are teaching history.
Imams.....they are like preachers, aren't they?
Judges...wait, aren't they the ones to uphold and execute laws?

So you are saying this is nothing more than an historical document they learn history from? Or is it being used in application by all of those people?

Tell me, when has Islamic jurisprudence never applied within Islam?

reply to post by WarminIndy

I'm sorry, but you seem to think that Islamic Jurisprudence, as a whole, is defined, outlined and delineated in that one book you keep harping on about.
That simply is not so.

babloyi
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

I'm sorry, but you seem to think that Islamic Jurisprudence, as a whole, is defined, outlined and delineated in that one book you keep harping on about.
That simply is not so.

You can't seem to accept the source. Argue with that source, I only told you what the source said.

But let's see from [www.fatwa-online.com...]Fatwa Online.com[/url]

Do not help anyone in disobedience to Allaah... Imaam al-Barbahaaree (rahima-hullaah) mentions: ((From the Sunnah is that you do not help anyone in disobedience to Allaah, whether they be parents or any of the creation. There is no obedience to a human in disobedience to Allaah and no one is to be loved for that (i.e. disobedience to Allaah). Rather, all of that is to be hated for (the sake of) Allaah, the Blessed and Most High)). Sharhus-Sunnah - Imaam al-Barbahaaree

Where did they base this Fatwa from?

I didn't make this up either.

I war against those who reject the hadeeth... al-Humaydee, the Shaykh of al-Bukhaaree said: ((By Allaah, that I war against those who reject the hadeeth of the Messenger (sal-Allaahu `alayhe wa sallam) is more beloved to me than that I should war against the same number of Non-Muslims)). al-Harawee in Dhamm al-Kalaam

These are fatwas, based in Sharia, so no matter how you cut it, slice or dice it, mix it up and shake it, Islamic jurisprudence relies on Sharia. Otherwise they can't issue Fatwas, now can they?

Now you might say this Fatwa is ideal...

The jihaad with decisive proofs... Ibn al-Qayyim said: ((The jihaad with decisive proofs [from the Book and the Sunnah] and the tongue takes precedence over the jihaad with the sword and the spear)). al-Jawaab as-Saheeh of Ibn Taymiyyah (1/237)

So then the war against those who reject the Hadiths lie solely in rhetoric, you would think. But then why is the sword even mentioned? You would think that if the sword were no option, then it should not even be considered. But it's there, in their Fatwa.

reply to post by WarminIndy

I am honestly getting tired of speaking with you. You can't seem to answer anything at all with a straight answer, and whenever I catch you out, you switch to another tack, as if answering a question I never asked, and totally avoiding the questions I DID ask.

This is compounded and made worse by the fact that you don't seem to understand what "Shariah" "Fiqh" "Madhab" and "fatwa" mean, and what they imply.

You quote a "fatwa.com" site, but when I go to the site, I get an "under construction" page. What on earth are you on about? (EDIT: I see you updated the link now. How come you don't provide a direct link to wherever you got your "fatwas" from? Then we'd see that the quote is from the section titled "WORDS OF WISDOM", and isn't a fatwa at all. Not that I get your purpose in quoting it.)
You quote Al-Hasan ibn 'Ali al-Barbahari, but while al-Barbahari was an Islamic theologian, he certainly wasn't a scholar of Jurisprudence, or even a sheikh (which I use in the educational tier sense). So while he may have said what you quote (I have no way of checking), it wasn't a "fatwa".

You also quote Al-Humaydi, without mentioning how he was part of a school of thought that is essentially negligible today- it has almost no followers. How is it relevant what he said in a fatwa? IF it IS a fatwa, because it wasn't in a book on jurisprudence or any sort of manual. And what exactly your point is with that quote. What exactly are you trying to show? Because what you quoted doesn't support anything you say.

Both the books you quoted, Dham al-Kalam and al-Jawaab as-Saheeh, are not books of jurisprudence. They do not pretend to be books of jurisprudence. One deals with how certain Kalam schools of thoughts are wrong, and the other is a "response" to Christianity from the viewpoint of Islam. They make no fatwas (not that that is what a book of fiqh would do, I was just clarifying since that is what you keep mentioning).

So what on earth are you on about? Can you answer straight any of the questions I've posed? Or are you immediately going to jump to some other random point now and try to throw everybody off with archaic spellings of technical words in another language?

reply to post by babloyi


Jurisprudence right?

Who defines jurisprudence in Islam?

Who executes jurisprudence in Islam?

Don't keep jumping around the sources as though the sources are wrong.

When a Fatwa is issued, does it come from those who are defining jurisprudence or those who are executing jurisprudence?

Are fatwas not based on jurisprudence?

Fiqh is Sharia...is it not?

One more time....Islamic Jurisprudence

Now tell me the objections you have with this Islamic site.

Muslim law is known as Shari'a and the Fiqh is the process of creating laws

In Islam, jurisprudence in Muslim Law, Sharia. The original meaning of the word is "understanding" or "knowledge." Fiqh was the way of creating a law system in accordance with the principles of Islam as based on the central religious scripture, the Koran, and the stories told about the Muhammad (sw) and the first Muslims. The need for systemized and verified information of the latter, motivated the development of the hadiths. The developments of the hadiths and of fiqh, thereby Sharia, were largely parallel.

I quoted to you from primary sources, that you dispute. And yet Muslim law is based on the very source you dispute. You can't have it 60 different ways and then say "Oh, but this school, or that school, or I don't think this way, or they are stupid for thinking that way"

As you seem to not want to acknowledge that Sharia IS Muslim law, and that FIQH is merely the method to arrive at individual laws, based on the Qu'ran, and codified and executed through FATWAS, which are OPINIONS of ISLAMIC scholars, then you are misleading people.

Show me then, can you, where any of the Sharia books no longer are used in Sharia courts? Which Sharia court says "that ancient document does not apply today"?

reply to post by WarminIndy

Places where they may not pray


14.4.14 Places in which it is offensive
to pray: It is offensive to pray:
1. in a bathhouse or its outer room
where clothes are removed;
2. in the middle of a path; 3. at a rubbish dump;
4. at a slaughterhouse;
5. in a church;
6. in places where taxes (dis: 10.32)
are gathered or taken;
7. in places likely to be contaminated by wine;
8. on top of the Ka’ba;
9. or towards a tomb(dis:w-21).

As you can see, these are anti-Jewish
and anti-Christian. But I have to ask,
how does one decide to pray on top
of the Ka'aba? But the reason this is
anti-Jewish is that they mention
slaughterhouses, because Jewish rabbis bless the slaughtered animal
before slaughter and to keep it
kosher, only one man has been
approved as the official slaughterer.
The rabbi in blessing the animal
basically gives thanks for the animal provided for food. But you may not pray in a graveyard
or have a religious service for a
funeral.

a great example how half knowledge can be used to show a twisted image of anything.
Anti-Jewish? Muslims also pray before slaugthering an animal.
The "prayer" that is being talked about is the "salah."(the 5 times one that you may seen on some video etc)
you think someone would really like to bend and prostrate in a place where there is blood on the floor and it stinks and chances are that the clothes would get spoiled?

Anti-christian you say as we are not to pray in church? Thats simply because we don't pray where there are idols, give us a pure idols/images free church and i assure you i would pray. Btw even jews think the same. They forbid from praying in churches but are fine in praying at a mosque as its clean from any idols/images.

You are quoting excerpts from a book along with horribly distorted interpretations. The problem is that people who are ignorant would lap it all up and even praise you for your knowledge and wisdom.

You said that kids(boys) after age of 7 should be encouraged to pray and after 10 disciplined more even if a mild physical punishment is required.
You said girls are not mentioned, because they are to be treated more harshly?!!! WHAT KIND OF PERVERTED INTERPRETATION IS THAT?
Does the text says it or its just a product of your twised mind,wishful thinking and prejudice?

reply to post by logical7


A great example of deflecting the blame onto Indy for her 'half-knowledge' when it sits squarely with the leadership/clerics teaching VIOLENCE to their Muslim adherents.

Why did you not address the articles? Or pronounce the sites as "illegitimate"?

I thought you'd do better than that, logical7.

wildtimes
reply to post by logical7

 

A great example of deflecting the blame onto Indy for her 'half-knowledge' when it sits squarely with the leadership/clerics teaching VIOLENCE to their Muslim adherents.

Why did you not address the articles? Or pronounce the sites as "illegitimate"?

I thought you'd do better than that, logical7.

edit on 11/13/13 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)

Actually yes! The twisted interpretation of Indy may sit very well with the interpretation of power hungry clerics and I am just saying that they and Indy both are wrong!!

I am also criticizing Indy for claiming that her twisted and perverted interpretation is actually the one that is intended in Islam.
The scholars of Islam that she is quoting were great people and very humble. Using their views to make horribly wrong statements will not be in anyway wise and I would point it out for what it is.
I am also not here to please you or anyone for that matter nor to live up to your "expectations".

reply to post by logical7

I am also not here to please you or anyone for that matter nor to live up to your "expectations".

Ouch. I invited you, personally, into this thread, which is something you have asked us to do when we'd like your comments. You certainly have 'expectations' of others, like you 'expect' us to accept YOUR view of us whether it is true or not (e.g. 'the evil West').

I wanted to know what your opinion of THE SITES I SOURCED is, in terms of them reflecting what you believe about Islam.

Never mind then. I'll just assume they are legitimate outlets of scholars and clerics with integrity, and NOT Islamophobic sites. So, there. That it all. Since you have not jumped to condemn them, I take it they are "acceptable" as Muslim sources, and will continue to look at them from that pov.